How the Media Manufactured a ‘Genocide’
If Israel’s war in Gaza qualifies as genocide, it would constitute a striking historical outlier: perhaps the first such case of genocide triggered by a mass terrorist attack involving the slaughter of civilians and the taking of hostages; the first in which the genocider permitted food, fuel, and humanitarian aid to flow into the territory of its purported victims; and potentially the only instance in which the perpetrators lacked any prior plan or ideological commitment to extermination. It may also be unique in that the targeted group’s combatants have deliberately embedded themselves in civilian infrastructure and sought to increase civilian casualties for strategic and propaganda purposes. And it could be the only genocide that might plausibly be halted on the spot—not by the genocider, but by the group claiming victimhood. Specifically, were Hamas to release the hostages and lay down its arms, Israel’s military campaign—having achieved its core objectives—would likely cease.
Woof. ‘Likely’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that last sentence, don’t you think?
I’ve never been comfortable calling what Israel is doing in Gaza “genocide.” It seems pretty plainly not to be, at least until recently, when Israel’s decision to wade back into Gaza has made me — and others — wonder.
What, then, to call it?